Join or sign in Register for your free TechRepublic membership or if you are already a member, sign in using your preferred method below. Use Your Email Use FacebookUse Linkedin

WINS without NetBEUI

Locked

Our Network manager wants to remove NetBEUI competely from the network and just use WINS (to free up bandwidth which we really don’t have a problem with). We run an NT/WIN9X environment. I thought that having NetBEUI was good just in case you have WINS problems. Anyone with solid reasons I can give to her to as to not remove it would be much appreciated.

Topic

WINS without NetBEUI

In reply to WINS without NetBEUI

NetBEUI can’t be routed, so if wins goes down, no one will be able to see anything outside thier particular segment. If wins does go down, you should still be able to communicate with tcp/ip until you can get it back up.

WINS without NetBEUI

In reply to WINS without NetBEUI

WINS without NetBEUI

In reply to WINS without NetBEUI

Short of it being a “backup” in case WINS goes down, there isn’t much of use for it unless your environment isn’t routed.

WINS without NetBEUI

In reply to WINS without NetBEUI

WINS without NetBEUI

In reply to WINS without NetBEUI

There is no reason not to remove it, especially if you have a network larger than about ten computers. Without WINS the computers just resort to broadcasts for names. This does slow the resolution some and adds traffic but it shouldn’t be worse thannetbeui only.

WINS without NetBEUI

In reply to WINS without NetBEUI

WINS without NetBEUI

In reply to WINS without NetBEUI

If bandwidth is not really a problem then keep NetBEUI for:
1.) Failsafe
2.) Much faster on internal(non routed) networks than TCP/IP.
3.) Direct communication with SMB Services as opposed to TCP/IP (That’s what makes it faster than TCP/IP in thefirst place)
4.) Practically no overheads (which is a good argument to hold on to it)

WINS without NetBEUI

In reply to WINS without NetBEUI

WINS without NetBEUI

In reply to WINS without NetBEUI

Yes, tell your Network Manager that NETBEUI is the most fastest, most reliable and most efficient protocol that works well in small LANs, with VERY LITTLE OVERHEAD.
The drawback is it is not routable as everyone here says, and it is not intended for WAN use.
Thats your best argument there.

Jun

WINS without NetBEUI

In reply to WINS without NetBEUI

WINS without NetBEUI

In reply to WINS without NetBEUI

I know this probably won’t win the points but I can’t help making the observation that you’re offering a lot of points to purchase support for a very weak position.

Yes, the overhead of NetBEUI is light relative to that of TCP/IP, but the combination of the two is still more overhead than TCP/IP alone.

And, as has already been pointed out, in the real world, NetBEUI does NOT act as a backup to WINS so that argument is completely without merit.

If you wanted to argue in favor of using NetBEUI throughout your network except for external Internet connections via a router with NAT, I might be able to offer support for that argument. But with the facts as presented, your network manager is right in what she wants to do.

regards!paul

WINS without NetBEUI

In reply to WINS without NetBEUI

WINS without NetBEUI

In reply to WINS without NetBEUI

Dear Sir,

you have to know that when you are working with more than one protocols your Network will be more Busy, so I sudjest to use just One Protocol.
Related to Wins if your Network Manager know to establish separate Wins in the different Servers and replicate between their data bases you have been sure that even one WINS service comming down you have just load the second Wins and do a litle reconfiguration in DHCP ofcourse you have to to configure your Workstation with two Wins Primary and Secondary.

Sincerely,
Ron Farzan

WINS without NetBEUI

In reply to WINS without NetBEUI

We have done the WINS Primary and secondary already.

WINS without NetBEUI

In reply to WINS without NetBEUI

In light of the differences between netbeui and TCP/IP, which is not your primary concern, where WINS and TCP/IP is…

Sorry, but your Network Admin has a good idea to remove netbeui.

Here is the solution: TCP/IP uses netbios (netbios over tcp/ip) for name propogation. Netbeui does the same thing, both use netbios. Therefore, yes you can get rid of netbeui safely and be secure knowing that TCP/IP and WINS work together properly, and even more so, as some of the answers indicated, in a routed environment.

I suspect that you are using TCP/IP AND Netbeui for protocols, and this is complete unnecessary and a waste of bandwidth.

What happens if WINS goes down? Well if you’re on a routed network, You’d lose name resolution between subnets, and it wouldn’t make adifference in the world whether netbeui was running or not. Only a WINS server can provide name resolution across a routed network, unless routers are told to forward the broadcasts. So the best way to avoid a WINS breakdown is to have anot

WINS without NetBEUI

In reply to WINS without NetBEUI

WINS without NetBEUI

In reply to WINS without NetBEUI

If you have a routed network, NetBEUI isn’t doing any good anyway. You should be running NetBIOS over IP if it is routed. If you are concerned about WINS going down, setup a slave WINS or (and this would be my choice), use DNS.

With DNS, makesure all of your servers are listed and you can resolve their names (use nslookup). This will allow Windows95/98/2000/NT to resolve without WINS. If needed, each of those OS’s also support a Unix-like file “hosts” which allows you to hard-code in names and IP’s.

Going forward to WIn2k, DNS is the answer, as WINS is being phased out, and used in Win2k only for legacy compatibility. If you start the migration to DNS now, you should be in a better position for upgrading.

WINS without NetBEUI

In reply to WINS without NetBEUI

[Author]

Replies